Commonwealth v. Baker

• Decision Date: 24 October 1890
• Citation: 25 N.E. 718,152 Mass. 337
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. BAKER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

152 Mass. 337

25 N.E. 718

COMMONWEALTH v. BAKER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

October 24, 1890

COUNSEL

John E. Sullivan and John Hopkins, for defendant.

Andrew J. Waterman and H.A. Wyman, for the Commonwealth.

OPINION

W ALLEN, J.

There was evidence not disputed that the club used its rooms for the purpose of dispensing intoxicating liquors to its members, and that the defendant assisted in keeping and maintaining the rooms for that use. "To dispense" is defined by Webster: "To deal or divide out in parts or portions, to distribute, as the steward dispenses provisions according to his directions." St.1887, c 206, provides that "all buildings or places used by clubs for the purpose of selling, distributing, and dispensing intoxicating liquors to their members or others shall be deemed common nuisances." The contention for the defendant is that the club was incorporated; that there was no evidence that it owned any intoxicating liquor, nor that any such liquor was dispensed by it except to members to whom it belonged; and that the use of its rooms for that purpose is not prohibited. The evidence for the defendant tended to prove that the rooms of the club were furnished with conveniences for storing and keeping intoxicating liquors belonging to its members, and that no such liquor was kept there except what belonged to members individually; that the rooms were used by the club to receive orders for the purchase of intoxicating liquors for members, and to keep such liquors when purchased for the members, and to serve it out to them as ordered; that the furniture and everything used in dispensing the liquor to members belonged to the club; and that all ingredients, except intoxicating liquors, which entered into any particular beverage or concoction ordered by a member, were furnished by the club. If the evidence proved nothing more, we think that it was sufficient to sustain the finding that the place was a common nuisance. A place would be equally a nuisance under the statute, whether used by a club to sell intoxicating liquor to its members, or to distribute among its members intoxicating liquor owned by them in common, or to procure for and dispense to its members intoxicating liquor which was bought for and belonged to them individually. If the club, by its agent, purchased and stored intoxicating liquors for its members, and dealt out in portions to each member, upon his order, the liquor belonging to and kept for him, and kept the place for that purpose, the place was a common nuisance under the statute. Com. v. Smith, 102 Mass. 144, was an indictment, under Gen.St. c. 87, § 7, for keeping a tenement used for the illegal keeping and illegal sale of intoxicating liquors. The defendant was the steward of an unincorporated club, and bought intoxicating liquors for the club, which he distributed among the members. The court say: "If the liquors really belonged to the members of the club, and had been previously purchased by them, or on their account, of some person other than the defendant, and if he merely kept the liquors for them, and to be divided among them,...